It's important to remember their framing, as well. They were using it to demonstrate people's general poor judgment of risk, as evidence by polling people with "would you let your kid play at a house where the parents owned guns" and "would you let your kid play at a house with a swimming pool". Statistically, the swimming pool is more dangerous, but more parents said "no" to the household with guns.

Agreed, and that's a good point. However, children under ten are hardly the only demographic one cares about when it comes to gun deaths . It's a very weird comparison in a discussion ostensibly about violence, which isn't quite the same as accidental drownings or accidental shooting (which I assume are prevalent in under-10 gun deaths)

Gun-lovers plan protest in DC with loaded rifles. What have they to protest about? Not enough children shot? -- Richard Dawkins.http://bit.ly/17Ga5Fk

I offer no comment at this time on the wisdom of the planned protest referenced in the link, but I think Dawkin's comment is illustrative of the reason why gun-owners simply can't trust gun control advocates.

Gun owners and the organizations that represent them are routinely portrayed as murders and child-killers. That this comes from a self-appointed figurehead for reason and rational discourse is all the more disappointing.

Very true, it's not a great line.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not a great line". I do think it's emblematic of the motivations of gun control advocates, and is representative of the earlier discussions regarding how it makes any sort of discussion impossible.

No, it's just emblemeatic that assholes attract other assholes. At least Dawkins is not an organization of assholes, planning to be assholes in public, in defiance of law. I can't wait for the felony convictions from this coming shit show.

Gun-lovers plan protest in DC with loaded rifles. What have they to protest about? Not enough children shot? -- Richard Dawkins.http://bit.ly/17Ga5Fk

I offer no comment at this time on the wisdom of the planned protest referenced in the link, but I think Dawkin's comment is illustrative of the reason why gun-owners simply can't trust gun control advocates.

Gun owners and the organizations that represent them are routinely portrayed as murders and child-killers. That this comes from a self-appointed figurehead for reason and rational discourse is all the more disappointing.

Very true, it's not a great line.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not a great line". I do think it's emblematic of the motivations of gun control advocates, and is representative of the earlier discussions regarding how it makes any sort of discussion impossible.

I agreed with you about his particular comment with which you took issue. I guess I could have phrased it more forcefully.

Nevertheless, the statement by the people he's characterizing perfectly captures the unhinged, violent, and myopic stereotype many GRAs ostensibly rail against. It takes two to tango in this case, so you might understand how people with other perspectives would feel similarly incensed reading crazed diatribes like the one Dawkins apparently reacted to.

On the plus side, these guys are unlikely to damage public property like say to the tune of $85k in this example. On the other hand, labor costs will probably increase from the security this event will draw.

Gun owners and the organizations that represent them are routinely portrayed as murders and child-killers. That this comes from a self-appointed figurehead for reason and rational discourse is all the more disappointing.

It was hyperbole designed to provoke much like Flying Spaghetti Monster was. I would say Dawkins' tactics are quite consistent whether he is speaking out against religion or gun violence. Why did you pick Dawkins as the person you designated as an example of why gun violence opponents can't be trusted? Dawkin's can be quite rational, but he also pushes buttons. Could you use Gabby Giffords as the representative of those opposing gun violence instead?

On the plus side, these guys are unlikely to damage public property like say to the tune of $85k in this example. On the other hand, labor costs will probably increase from the security this event will draw.

* look over there *

Nice non-sequitur. You've acclimated well to the norms of this thread.

This particular stat is from 2004 but it bears repeating how huge of a problem gun shows [aren't]

Gun control advocates and the mainstream media have been doing their best to change that over the last decade, by claiming that gun shows are havens of illegal activity. Even BATFE trumpets the occasional indictment after a prohibited person obtains a firearm.

This particular stat is from 2004 but it bears repeating how huge of a problem gun shows [aren't]

Gun control advocates and the mainstream media have been doing their best to change that over the last decade, by claiming that gun shows are havens of illegal activity. Even BATFE trumpets the occasional indictment after a prohibited person obtains a firearm.

Yes, that is why I proposed background checks for every transfer of ownership, including the family and friends route. That is the only gun control idea that I see as having any chance of having any effect at all. I am not making the absurd claim that it would keep all guns out of the hands of criminals, simply that it would make it a bit harder and keep guns out of the hands of some criminals. As a big plus it wouldn't keep any guns out of the hands of non-criminals.

No bans, registration or anything other than just universal background checks.

So if I have a spare gun that I discuss with someone whom I'm shooting with at the range, and they express interest in that firearm, I should pay a fee before I transfer that arm? Why? They obviously have other arms, and my additional arm makes for no additional harm.

Also, what if I leave town for a month or two, and my spouse has de facto control over my arms? Is that a transfer?

Personally, I would prefer a system that merges NICS, CCW, and FOID cards.

So if I buy a one off firearm, the process would be as it is now: Enter store, buy gun. Or, with UBC, find gun on classifieds in newspaper, meet person, seller calls a toll free number to verify by some form of .gov ID that the person isn't a PP, and then sell the gun.

If that process is too tedious, sign up for a CCW permit or FOID card (either would perform the requisite checks) and then those would be considered valid in lieu of a check.

No firearms data is stored. If you are sharing guns a lot, or have family type situations, getting both parties in question to have a CCW/FOID would be logical.

For me to accept that there would have to be ironclad "abuse this at your peril" provisions concerning the agency in charge of issuance of such a thing.It would, at the present time and at the Federal level, fall under the BATF, which I wouldn't trust with such a program Not Fscking Ever.

For me to accept that there would have to be ironclad "abuse this at your peril" provisions concerning the agency in charge of issuance of such a thing.It would, at the present time and at the Federal level, fall under the BATF, which I wouldn't trust with such a program Not Fscking Ever.

Would a $10,000 fine payable to the wronged parties each be acceptable?

Despite the attention to gun violence in recent months, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is markedly lower than it was two decades ago. A new Pew Research Center survey (March 14-17) found that 56% of Americans believe the number of crimes involving a gun is higher than it was 20 years ago; only 12% say it is lower and 26% say it stayed the same. (An additional 6% did not know or did not answer.)

Men (46%) are less likely than women (65%) to say long-term gun crime is up. Young adults, ages 18 to 29, are markedly less likely than other adults to say long-term crime is up—44% do, compared with more than half of other adults. Minority adults are more likely than non-Hispanic whites to say that long-term gun crime is up, 62% compared with 53%.

Asked about trends in the number of gun crimes “in recent years,” a plurality of 45% believe the number has gone up, 39% say it is about the same and 10% say it has gone down. (An additional 5% did not know or did not answer.) As with long-term crime, women (57%) are more likely than men (32%) to say that gun crime has increased in recent years. So are non-white adults (54%) compared with whites (41%). Adults ages 50 and older (51%) are more likely than those ages 18-49 (42%) to believe gun crime is up.

I didn't bother quoting the section that detailed long-term crime rates, since anyone participating in this thread is already quite aware of the long-term crime trends. That the public seems completely unaware of the trend is far more interesting and relevant.

* The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.

* Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.

* The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.

* Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.

That argument is not going to work here. Someone who does not understand the difference between correlation and causation will assume that guns are a catalyst for violence of all kinds (read: evil). You'll want to show statistics that prove that violent violent gun crimes, as well as all crimes, have been on the decline before 1993. Bonus points if you show that the rate of decline stayed the same (logarithmically or straight up linearly, whatever the decline was suggesting).

For me to accept that there would have to be ironclad "abuse this at your peril" provisions concerning the agency in charge of issuance of such a thing.It would, at the present time and at the Federal level, fall under the BATF, which I wouldn't trust with such a program Not Fscking Ever.

Would a $10,000 fine payable to the wronged parties each be acceptable?

Add a zero, and permanently remove sovereign immunity from the issuing agency. That would be a start.

*at the moment they're not, because it's so ridiculously easy to buy them legally in the US. There is no point smuggling them.

There's an obvious parallel with drugs. Legalise recreational drugs in the U.S. and there's no incentive to smuggle them from Mexico. Legalise private firearms in Mexico and BATFE can't construct a moral panic with which politicians can justify further infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S.

Your first assertion made sense, and I agree. I've never taken recreational drugs bar alcohol (I'm Australian, it's practically a citizenship requirement), but legalising recreational drugs suits me fine. Harder and more damaging drugs like narcotics are a thornier issue.

Your second assertion makes no sense whatsoever. BATFE is toothless as it is, and you regard any restrictions 'unconstitutional', so your opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant.

I don't believe anyone has asserted that peer reviewed surveys or studies are facts, let alone perfect, but rather they provide data that are more useful than the superstition that otherwise pervades this subject.

This thread alone illustrates that gun-control advocates are much, much more reliant on supposition than are gun-rights advocates.

When posters can manage this much self-delusion regarding who has produced the most scientific evidence in a thread, the discussion is never going to get anywhere productive. That's the entire gun control debate in a nutshell.

The point remains, the takeaways from the Freakonomics podcast aren't really as solid or enlightening as you implied.

It didn't seem like everyone understood the relative risks of swimming pools even up to the last page. It's really basic stuff here true, but we seem to be in disagreement at that basic level.

Swimming pools have been covered many, many times in this and the previous thread. Usually shortly after someone trots out a car or pool analogy to handwave the amount of people killed by guns in the US each year.

Gun-lovers plan protest in DC with loaded rifles. What have they to protest about? Not enough children shot? -- Richard Dawkins.http://bit.ly/17Ga5Fk

I offer no comment at this time on the wisdom of the planned protest referenced in the link, but I think Dawkin's comment is illustrative of the reason why gun-owners simply can't trust gun control advocates.

Gun owners and the organizations that represent them are routinely portrayed as murders and child-killers. That this comes from a self-appointed figurehead for reason and rational discourse is all the more disappointing.

Bold mine.

What a ridiculous strawman. This is the equivalent of pointing to a statement by the WBC and concluding that we simply can't trust Christians.

Swimming pools have been covered many, many times in this and the previous thread. Usually shortly after someone trots out a car or pool analogy to handwave the amount of people killed by guns in the US each year.

Actually the point is relative risk, not absolute risk. Failing to recognize relative risk is detrimental to both individuals and society.

Quote:

This is the equivalent of pointing to a statement by the WBC and concluding that we simply can't trust Christians.

You have no shortage of Christians deriding the WBC. I'm not seeing anybody on his side calling Dawkins out here.

On the plus side, these guys are unlikely to damage public property like say to the tune of $85k in this example. On the other hand, labor costs will probably increase from the security this event will draw.

What the heck does that have to do witgh the issue except as a lol liberal snipe? That's an invitation to fold in the costs of death and injuries on the GRA side of the ledger.

There's no reason to humor a transparently irrelevant attempt to deflect off-topic.

I disagree. It's useful to call out this sort of bullshit when it happens, like the laughable 'guns are no more dangerous than any other tool' example from a few pages ago. What we should avoid is the several-page humouring of the bullshit:

"Would you let your 5-year-old play with a loaded gun? Would you let your 5-year-old play with a rubber mallet? Then shut up."

Swimming pools have been covered many, many times in this and the previous thread. Usually shortly after someone trots out a car or pool analogy to handwave the amount of people killed by guns in the US each year.

Actually the point is relative risk, not absolute risk. Failing to recognize relative risk is detrimental to both individuals and society.

You're right. Failure to recognise risk is a common trait of gun owners, who insist on owning guns for home protection despite the fact that they are increasing the risk of someone in the home being injured or killed as a result.

Quote:

Quote:

This is the equivalent of pointing to a statement by the WBC and concluding that we simply can't trust Christians.

You have no shortage of Christians deriding the WBC. I'm not seeing anybody on his side calling Dawkins out here.

"Would you let your 5-year-old play with a loaded gun? Would you let your 5-year-old play with a rubber mallet? Then shut up."

With proper supervision? Sure.

The problem is that what one side might call 'bullshit' or 'deflection' might you know, be the other side's misguided attempt at explanation and understanding. That's pretty much what everything but a very narrow set of points are deemed to be in this thread, which leads to a very narrow band of discussion and a lot of derision. I understand the purpose of the soap box isn't to come to a more thorough understanding nor to develop a sense of respect or even courtesy for people with different viewpoints, but it does seem a little sad nonetheless.

This is the equivalent of pointing to a statement by the WBC and concluding that we simply can't trust Christians.

You have no shortage of Christians deriding the WBC. I'm not seeing anybody on his side calling Dawkins out here.

You've seen it on this fucking page.

I don't think 'not a great line' and 'hyperbole' followed by asking 'why THIS guy?' really cuts it as a rejection of this guy's opinion. Perhaps calling him an asshole means a poster doesn't like his tactics, but it doesn't indicate agreement or disagreement with his opinion. That's not exactly the same as saying the WBC is a bunch of bigoted homophobes. See how that makes it clear the poster does not agree with either their tactics or their beliefs? Nobody here has indicated that they disagree with what Dawkins is saying. That leaves the possibility that he's just an asshole expressing through hyperbole a belief that other posters are fine with, that these gun owners do not care if children are shot. Perhaps some posters stating clearly that no, they do not believe gun rights advocates DO NOT CARE about children being shot would help this trust issue. Personally, I don't think anyone cares about trust; we can be happy to distrust each other and make fun of each other for doing so.